If you live in a nation with rule of law and wide ranging protections of freedom of speech like the US there is no need to be anonymous in the vast majority of cases.
Anonymity should obviously still be possible but the decreased trustworthiness of anonymous statements is just something that inevitably comes with anonymity.
(Who are “they”?)
I think you overestimate the practical value of these constitutional protections. Yes, US law allows US citizens to criticize their government in a way that would be unimaginable in China. But not everyone who prefers anonymity is trying to hide from an oppressive government. Most people are understandably reluctant to offend their employer, neighbors, friends and family, etc. even if they have a legitimate concern. These personal concerns are much more pressing for the majority of citizens than the possibility of FBI agents knocking on your door.
If you work for BP, You don't want to be caught arguing that offshore drilling should be heavily regulated, especially if you work in a state with at-will employment. Similarly, you don't want that city official to take revenge on you for blogging about his unprofessional treatment of you. You don't want your mom to find out that you run a blog about your life as a lesbian. You don't want your neighbor to find out that you complained on Reddit about his annoying behavior.
Little things like these add up and serve to discourage free speech even in mostly-free societies. Constitutional protections are not enough. Custom can be just as oppressing as evil communist regimes. You need to turn the goddamn society upside down before you can expect most people to blog with their real names, and that's not likely to happen anytime soon.
Anonymity is sometimes necessary or desired but what it is definitely not is the beginning and end of free speech as was implied in the comment I was responding to.
As for "anonymity is not the beginning and end of free speech", I don't think the comment you were responding to said anything to that effect. It only said that taking away anonymity would also take away free speech. By admitting that "anonymity is sometimes necessary", you're basically agreeing with that comment. Anonymity surely isn't all there is to free speech, but without it, free speech would be severely hampered.
Tell that To Glen Greenwald, a journalist, who is finding that Bank of American is actively "scheming" to discredit her because of her support of WikiLeaks.
Tell that to Helen Thomas, a former White House correspondent, who criticized America's Pro-Israel stance and how it impacts on peace in the middle east.
The larger point that I'm trying to make is there are certain debates in this country that are one-sided. By that, I mean one-side controls the debate. It is not interested in honest discourse and the free exchange of ideas. It is interested in the status quo. It has found out that it is easier to discredit its critics (AIPAC has labeled most of its critics as 'anti-semetic', even if they are of Jewish Heritage.) than engage them.
In these instances, it might be easier to lay out the facts in sourced, cited, verifiable articles while remaining anonymous.
Sorry, but my irony detector is broken apparently. Do you truly believe this? Care to expand? Not trolling FYI.
As for "they", well, no one really knows who they are. But "they" are the pillars of every good conspiracy. (Slightly tongue-in-cheek).
I agree with your last sentence 100%, but, at least for me, complete anonymity is a necessity. You can relate (f.i.) to my online persona, which is consistent and available for discussion. There is no need to know my real name.
I'm not so sure that's true.
First, many people have found themselves at the receiving end of lawsuits and harassment because they wrote a bad review of a restaurant or said that someone was a skank. This is civil not criminal, but the results are the same, you can lose your house, your money and have years taken up in courts assuming you have the money to finance a defense.
On the criminal side you can get tossed in jail. How that works is you point out on your blog that the local police chief is taking bribes from drug dealers. Then, if you are not anonymous, the police raid your house and find rubber gloves, plastic sandwich bags, carburetor cleaner, ammonia, fish tank tubing, cold tablets, and aluminum foil. You say "What's the big deal I have all those things in my house." That's right, we all do. They are also proof you are a meth manufacturer and possession of them is proof your are guilty, the possession itself of "precursors" is criminal. Since everyone has these things, anyone can be legitimately convicted of running a meth lab, which is a useful tool for silencing dissent.
Or let's talk Julian Assange for example. His identity is known as is who those he critiques. He is up for "rape by surprise" charges and leaders in the US have called for the death penalty against him. This is free speech?